Mediaboss Marketing

Pita suggested that countries should not focus only on profitability, but their interest should also be extended to the environment, land rights, land ownership redistribution, and building a social welfare state that takes care of labour empowerment.

That's almost like social democracy to us. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. But it's about really coming together to really think about how we create this architecture of how we proceed forward, he said.

Pita, who is now the chief adviser to the new Move Forward leader, added that whenever he and his party can change Thailand through demilitarisation and decentralisation, they would start thinking about foreign policy and look outward to the world.

His message to the world would be Thailand is back. Thailand means business.

He pointed out that the kingdom is a middle power that is the second largest country in Asean, a region that has a combined population of 670 million people and a total GDP of US$6 trillion. You cannot ignore us, he said.

Pita also said that amidst many ongoing conflicts around the world, Thailand really needs to look outward to make sure that you know we are part of the international community.

He suggested that Thailand should join other Asean founding members in telling the world that right makes might and might doesn't make right.

He suggested a review of Thailands foreign policy after 10 years under what he called military rule.

We want to be able to rebalance once again. Its not about taking sides, it's about sticking to principles. We want to be able to criticise our friends and talk to our foes, he said.

Under General Prayut Chan-o-chas government, Thailand adopted neutrality in its foreign policy in international conflicts backed by worlds powers.

Read the original:
Pita blames concentration of power and wealth for decline of ... - Nation Thailand

Why do we tend to favor democracy over other forms of political governance? Is it because democracy treats all citizens fairly and equally, which makes democratic decisions inherently good? Or is it because certain political decisions possess inherent superiority, and democracy is simply the most reliable method of making them? In other words, do good democratic decisions derive their goodness from their democratic nature, or are they democratically made because they are good? The philosopher David Estlund calls this question Euthyphros dilemma of democracy. And, like many other philosophical questions, we can trace this one back to Ancient Greece. There is no better place to look for an answer than the cradle of democracy itself: ancient Athens.

According to Aristotle, the Athenian polis was one of the largest in the Hellenic world. While there were common features shared by all poleis, there were also numerous differences in terms of size, location, economic activities, rules, laws, and more. Despite these differences, however, many city-states had their own (more or less) permanent political structures that were specific to certain groups of poleis. Thus, we can observe the coexistence of democracies, oligarchies, and tyrannies in Ancient Greece. These city-states were bordered by a non-Hellenic world, which included the great empires of Egypt and Persia.

The Greek poleis were constantly changing due to population growth, economic activities, colonization, wars, famines, and epidemics. Additionally, internal political frictions, conflicts, and clashes between different factions also contributed to these changes. Each faction had its own vision of the ideal organization of the community, which they sought to impose on others. Since the inception of Athenian democracy and the various reforms introduced by Solon and Cleisthenes, lawmakers made significant efforts to restrain these factions. All efforts to further democratize Athenian institutions aimed to reduce factionalism among the different tribes.

In the end, Athens had settled on ten geographically devised tribes. Each tribe consisted of members from three opposing political factions, and no faction could attain a majority within a single tribe. Over time, the Athenian state aimed to cultivate a sense of belonging to a particular tribe among its citizens. It was expected that members of the same tribe would cooperate, both in times of peace and during times of war. Therefore, Athenian democracy emerged as a collective endeavor to eradicate the potential concentration of political power in the hands of a single individual or a small group.

The highest political body of the Athenian democracy was the assembly (ekklesia), comprising all adult citizens. Unlike most modern democracies, in the Athenian assembly, every citizen had the direct ability to decide on all matters concerning the daily life of the polis. Each participant enjoyed the freedom of speech and the right to propose legislation. In practice, this meant that anyone could come forward with proposals, criticize the actions of officials, or challenge existing laws. More significant decisions usually required a quorum of approximately 6,000 citizens. However, the executive power rested with the boule, a council consisting of 500 citizens, with 50 representatives from each tribe. The new council was chosen every year, and each citizen could serve in a boule only twice in their lifetime. This is where we face another big departure from contemporary practices. Instead of voting-based elections, the Athenians employed a method called sortition, or election by lot. They utilized the same process to select juries for public courts.

Recall the dilemma presented at the beginning of this article. Here, we can see that Athenian democracy cherished both ways of defending what we may call democratic legitimacy. Its institutions were designed with the goal of ensuring equality among all citizens (although the criteria for citizenship were highly exclusive and discriminatory). But they also believed that democracy tends to produce high-quality decisions. And even Aristotle, who was not always fond of democracy, claimed that crowds of people produce better decisions when compared to a single politician, due to their diversity of perspectives. And so, the Athenians placed great importance on procedural fairness, with sortition being seen as the embodiment of their concept of fair and just selection, and a way of ensuring diversity. The entire process was facilitated through the use of a device called the kleroterion.

Aristotle provides us with a detailed description of the kleroterion. In the past century, scholars were uncertain whether Aristotle was referring to an actual object or a room, which led to numerous inaccurate translations. However, the discovery of several fragments of such devices dispelled any doubts. It is now evident that the Athenians did employ a sophisticated machine for the selection of government officials. Thanks to Aristotles description and archaeological evidence, the device has been successfully reconstructed, allowing us to precisely understand its appearance and functionality.

The machine consisted of one or more stone slabs containing numerous slots divided into columns. Each column represented one of the ten Athenian tribes and was labeled with a corresponding letter of the alphabet. Each eligible citizen who wanted to be a councilman (or a juror, or some other state official, depending on the type of election), possessed a token called a pinakion, which was used for their identification.

Although Aristotle stated that pinakia were made of boxwood, the surviving pieces we have today are made of bronze. Each pinakion was engraved with the name and tribe of the corresponding citizen, serving as a type of ancient ID card.

The process of selection by the kleroterion was run by ten overseers, one from each tribe. Their role was to collect the pinakia belonging to their tribesmen and arrange them in the appropriate column. Once all the tiles were lined up, the actual selection process could commence.

A crucial component of the kleroterion was a narrow tube with a funnel-shaped extension at the top. The overseers would insert a specific number of white and black bronze dice through the funnel, allowing them to arrange themselves randomly inside the tube. The number of dice used depended on the ratio between the total number of citizens and the number being elected. For instance, if they were to choose 100 representatives from a pool of 300 citizens, they would need 30 dice ten white and twenty black.

Using a mechanism consisting of two wedges, the operator of the machine released the dice one by one through the lower end of the tube. Each dice determined the fate of one row in the kleroterion. If a black dice was drawn, the entire row was eliminated; if it was white, the entire row was selected. Since each row contained exactly one representative from each tribe, this procedure ensured that, regardless of the outcome, all tribes would always have equal representation.

We must emphasize some of the consequences of election by lot. Firstly, the Athenians regarded randomness as an embodiment of true democracy. Sortition not only ensured equality of opportunity but also provided equality of chance. It nullified any material, rhetorical, or other advantages one might possess in the political arena. Secondly, the lottery eliminated the possibilities of pre-election manipulation. It was impossible to bribe voters when no voting was involved. Athenians were not alone in this practice; the Spartans were also known to employ it. In Sparta, voting served only to narrow down the number of potential candidates, while the winners were ultimately decided by lot. Thus, although the popular vote played a role in the process, attempting to buy votes was futile since no one could guarantee election victory through voting alone.

The third important point is that the use of the kleroterion was a public event. The Athenians typically placed a high value on openness and transparency in all spheres of public life. The very idea of a secret lottery would have been repugnant to them. Lastly, despite the Ancient Greeks reputation as mathematicians and their fondness for various games of chance, they never developed a theory of probability. They attributed any event whose causes could not be reliably predicted to the will of the gods.

Ancient Greeks believed in fate and held prophecies in high regard. According to their worldview, being chosen by the kleroterion simply fulfilled something predetermined long ago. Hence, sortition was not seen as a way of generating a random outcome; rather, it signified a decision that someone else had already made on their behalf. The act of playing dice was believed to have originated from fortune-telling through bone-throwing. Similarly, the Athenians placed their faith in the kleroterion because it provided another means of deciphering ones fate. If one was destined to be a public official, their appointment was universally accepted. Therefore, the Athenians employed democracy as a safeguard against human imperfections. To err is human, but a decision made by the gods could not possibly be wrong.

Some contemporary theorists propose the concept of voting lotteries which would grant suffrage to a randomly selected group of citizens. If this random group is a representative sample of the entire population, their decision would only slightly deviate from the one made by the entire electorate. This could save a significant amount of time and money and make mass participation less necessary. Other proposals involve implementing a modern kleroterion that would randomly choose public officials from a pool of citizens. Similar to the ancient kleroterion that ensured an equal representation of all Athenian tribes, we could achieve a much better representation of specific demographic groups in public institutions in comparison to modern elections by vote.

Should we expect changes in our political decision-making processes in the future? Is the new kleroterion on its way? The answer is likely not. We must remember that the ancient tradition of democracy differs fundamentally from the modern one. The ancient ideals of direct democracy and election by lot, even if attainable, may appear as foreign to contemporary citizens as representative democracy would to an ancient Athenian. Even if we assume that randomly selecting officials would have positive effects in todays context, it would need to be implemented in a much more technologically advanced manner. However, in a world where electronic voting remains insecure, the notion of choosing public officials through an electronic device seems like a nightmarish proposal. Even if such a system was completely reliable, many would still have doubts. Nonetheless, we should admire the ingenuity of the ancient Athenians and we are free to imagine how our world might look today if we attempted to live according to the democratic ideals of their time.

Follow this link:
Is There Democracy Without Voting? Elections by Lot in Ancient ... - The Collector

At a cheap card table in a South Market loft, Craig Newmark sat with friend and fellow web enthusiast Anthony Batt, mulling over what to call his newest web venture. It was the 1990s in San Francisco, when rent was affordable and the internet relatively new. Newmark, a round-faced software engineer, had just launched an email list that alerted his friends to local events in the city. In keeping with his tendency to take things literally, he floated San Francisco Events as a top contender for its name.

Batt was getting impatient; the list already had an unofficial name used by its recipients. Just call it Craigslist, he told his friend. And so it was.

Nearly three decades later, the mailing list has morphed into one of the most popular classified advertisement websites in the U.S., with a presence in more than 70 countries. Despite making a killing off its success, Newmark refused to monetize the site except through a handful of minimal revenue streams. He still retains a sense of frugality unique among his fellow tech entrepreneursbesides multiple streaming service subscriptions and a modest collection of Simpsons figurines, his largest luxuries include hiring a plant sitter when hes out of town.

A self-described nerd, Newmark has the requisite thick-rimmed glasses and affinity for science fiction. But the Craigslist founder is more likely to be found discussing the ideals of democracy than toying with Perl. Hes explored a varied range of political philosophies, ethical frameworks and social codes over the years, but his passions have stayed centered on how to safeguard the U.S. and its citizens against misinformation and harassment. Since retiring from Craigslist in 2018, he has become a crusader for cybersecurity protections, trustworthy journalism and veteran support.

Now, at 70, hes preparing for his next stage in life by giving away his sizable fortune. His donations to date havent been insignificant by any means. But its time to get serious, according to Newmark. My big mission, simply stated, is to help and protect the people who help and protect our country, he told Observer.

Newmarks initial interest in philosophical concepts was shaped during his childhood in Morristown, New Jersey, where he grew up in a lower middle-class Jewish household. His mother was a housekeeper. His father, an unsuccessful salesman of both meat and later insurance, died of lung cancer shortly after Newmark turned 13. I may have had a normal childhood with friends until my fathers death, said Newmark, who only recently considered how that loss may have catalyzed subsequent social dysfunction.

He grew isolated, getting into fights with other children in middle school, and was labeled a troubled child. Sent to the school psychiatrist, Newmark endured a series of ineffective talking sessions, failed attempts to interest the sixth grader in birdwatching and chess, and a marginally successful trip to Newark Airport in his counselors VW Bug to watch jets take off.

It didnt help that he was resolutely nerdyhe wore pocket protectors unironically and was a member of the debate team. And Newmark wasnt afraid to be pedantic. He called jocks Neanderthals and once attempted to report a gym teacher for abuse after being ordered to run laps, according to Mark Hashizume, a classmate at Morristown High School. Newmarks slight intellectual arrogance during this time was likely a sort of defensive mechanism, according to his old friend.

Newmark and Hashizume became fascinated by Ayn Rand and Objectivism, joining a school group the latter jokingly called The Selfish Cluba reference to the theory of selfish rationalism. With copies of Rands pamphlets and subscriptions to the libertarian Reason magazine, we would just hang out in the classroom and talk about philosophy and exchange ideas, Hashizume told Observer. Newmark once made a pilgrimage to the city to meet Murray Rothbard, a protege and eventual opponent of Rands. But the dalliance with libertarianism didnt last too long. Contact with the real world in any form has a tendency to get rid of delusions, said Newmark.

Something that stuck with him, however, were his Sunday school lessons. To this day, Newmark refers to the teachings of Mr. and Mrs. Levin, a Lithuanian couple who survived the Holocaust, as his ethical guidepost. Their mantras of treat people like you want to be treated and know when enough is enough were reinforced by the lyrics of Leonard Cohen, who Newmark came across in 1988 when he found a recording of Various Positions. That tape is a big part of the liturgy that affects me, he said.

After graduating from Case Western Reserve University, he worked for IBM as a programmer in Boca Raton, Detroit and Pittsburgh for 17 years. Newmark was still dealing with social challenges, often told by colleagues to pick his battles more carefully. I would correct people if they made relatively minor technical mistakes, and sometimes I would correct them in front of others, he said. His favorite manager told Newmark his sense of humor was his only saving grace and that he had a lot of room to grow. He was right, said Newmark, adding that he now realizes he lacked a basic understanding of social etiquette.

In the early 90s, Newmark left IBM behind for a position with Charles Schwab in San Francisco and found himself immersed in a community connected by the early roots of the Internet. It was a relatively nascent concept and one ripe with possibilities. Craig and I were both really excited to be at this birthplace of the web, said Batt, who met Newmark on The Well, one of the earliest online message boards, where the two bonded over their excitement for the newly invented World Wide Web.

At the time, computer enthusiasts were a small community, one that was optimistic about how technology could change society, Batt told Observer. He and Newmark attended get-togethers in Victorian apartments across San Francisco, parties where people gathered around computers to look at web pages and discuss articles from the recently launched Wired magazine. Excitement over the unexplored possibilities took on an almost religious fervor. We were evangelizing the web in a way that was earnest, said Batt. People approached the emerging digital domain with an emphasis on tikkun olam, according to Newmark, referring to a Hebrew term that translates to repairing the world.

Newmark also attended the Berkeley Cybersalon, a monthly gathering started by media consultant Sylvia Paull. More than 100 people would cram into Paulls house to discuss the impact technology had on some aspect of our society, whether it was education, music, literacy, security, she told Observer. Paull described Newmark as a straightforward personality who uses humor to soothe otherwise blunt remarks. If he sees a contradiction or someone aggrandizing their accomplishments, hell undercut what they say in a witty way, she said, to make them laugh, while realizing theyre showing off or falsifying something.

Newmark initially created Craiglist to aid friends in San Francisco looking for events, places to stay or available jobs. He was adding new people to the list constantly. He was just so friggin diligent, said Batt. It grew in popularity, and the listserv became a website in 1996. By the end of the following year, the website was getting around one million page views per month.

Fans of the site urged Newmark to stop running it with volunteers and turn it into a real company. I would go to events and VCs and bankers wanted to throw billions at me if I would do the usual Silicon Valley thing and monetize heavily, said Newmark. But he decided to monetize minimally, charging for a select portion of posts like job openings and broker apartment advertisements, because making money was his second priority. The first was still making the world a better place. Craigslist onboarded Americans in the tens of millions onto the Internet. Thats a good thing.

Craigslist was officially a private for-profit company in 1999, with Newmark as CEO. But that didnt last long. By the end of the year, people helped me to understand that as a manager, I suck, said Newmark. To do a good job of this stuff, you have to have charisma, or what I understand the kids call rizzIm using that in the broad sense, not the romantic sense, he said. Whatever charisma is, Im kind of charisma negative.

Newmark often self-deprecates in this manner, occasionally with a wry smile. He is very discreet; he doesnt like public attention, said Paull of her longtime friend. She recalled visiting him during Craigslists early days in his shabby office in a house out in the Avenues of San Francisco, where he introduced her to Jim Buckmaster, the computer programmer Newmark hired as CEO in 2000. This is the person who really runs the place, not me. I just handle customer service, he told her.

It wasnt a jokeafter ceding power, Newmark did take a customer service role at Craigslist, which he held for more than a dozen years. I liked the continual sense I was getting that Craigslist mattered, that it helped people with real life, he said of the job. But I saw things that I will never unsee. Hed created one of the worlds most popular websites, where users sold everything from motorcycle parts to cactus plants. However, the site also became a platform for prostitution. In 2010, more than a dozen attorneys general wrote an open letter to the company requesting its adult services section be taken down to prevent instances of sex trafficking. Later that year, the section was permanently closed.

Despite receiving public backlash for its perceived inaction, Craigslist had actually been quietly working on related issues with law enforcement agencies. In 2015, Newmark accepted an award from the FBI for the websites collaboration in preventing human trafficking. It had been offered five years prior, according to Newmark, who said he regrets not accepting it earlier to diffuse misinformation. Lets just say there were some mental health issues. Im still suffering from some traumatic stress, he said. The stress of running something large and public that interacts with thousands of people every day was real.

Craigslist also faced accusations that it played a role in the decline of newspapers by taking away lucrative revenue from traditional classified advertisements. At a 2005 convention for the American Society of Newspaper Editors, panelists displayed a photo of Newmark while discussing the industrys crisis, and he was labeled a newspaper villain as recently as 2018. For years I was waiting for someone to look at the actual numbers, he said, pointing to findings from Danish analyst Thomas Baekdal that suggest websites like Craigslist had no measurable impact on the newspaper industry.

Newmark officially left Craigslist five years ago, but his focus on revolutionizing society has only become more spirited. Through Craig Newmark Philanthropies, he has channeled millions of dollars to organizations working to promote trustworthy journalism, strengthen cyber civil defense and raise up veterans. The company needed my help less and less, and I became progressively useless, he said. I found I could do more, and more good, for people by focusing on philanthropy.

This wasnt a surprise to old friends like Paull, who recalled Newmarks enduring interest in keeping scammers off Craigslist and his longstanding passion for upholding democratic ideals. He could have been a lawyer, hes really a constitutionalist, she said.

Newmarks philanthropic engagement with journalism was largely inspired by lessons he learned in history and civics in high school. I was taught that a trustworthy press is the immune system of democracy, he said. I could see an immune system not working, and I decided I needed to play a role. He reached out to industry leaders like Jeff Jarvis to figure out what that role could look like. Newmark was particularly interested in how to regain public trust and fend off disinformation through good journalism, according to Jarvis, a professor at the City University of New Yorks Graduate School of Journalism. Trust is the new black was one of his lines, he told Observer.

After Jarvis introduced Newmark to the schools then-dean, Sara Bartlett, the Craigslist founder gave the program a $20 million donation. In an homage to Newmarks nerdy roots, the 2018 endowment was celebrated with promotional materials like plastic pocket protectors emblazoned with the schools new name: The Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism. Hes since funded numerous media publications like the Markup and the Guardian, in addition to giving multi-million-dollar gifts to the journalism schools at Columbia and Howard University.

On the cybersecurity side, Newmark has kept an eye on the field since the 1970s when he became interested in natural language processing, a branch of artificial intelligence. Ive been paying intermittent attention through the decades, until the point where I finally got seriously involved, he said. In 2017, Newmark began to hear about information related warfare originating from our adversaries overseas in conversations with veterans, journalists and occasionally law enforcement. It took a while, but it finally registered that we were a country at war, and that everyone needed to play a part, maybe in proportion to their ability to help.

Newmark has funded numerous organizations combating ransomware operations and educating civilians in cybersecurity literacy. Its a big deal, because ransomware destabilizes businesses here in the U.S., which is a matter of national security, he said. And beyond that, ransomware gangs, lets say in Russia or North Korea, appear to be a part of the way they attack our country and how they financially support themselves.

Meanwhile, veterans issues have struck a chord with Newmark since high school, when he witnessed returning service members being verbally mistreated. I was completely naive back then about politics, but I could see that this was really unfair, he said. In 2013, he was named a consultant, or nerd-in-residence, at the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Its no coincidence that much of Newmarks giving has a patriotic bent. He evolves to meet the needs of the moment, but all keeping in the through line of citizen security, Vivian Schiller, director of the nonprofit Aspen Institute and Newmarks former philanthropic advisor, told Observer. Newmark, who refers to himself as an Eisenhower baby and a nerd, 1950s style, says he grew up during a time when patriotism was the norm. Now, a lot of people who use that word lets say theres room for improvement. But he still believes in the conceptmost of his philanthropy efforts focus not only on protecting people but specifically American citizens. First, we need to protect the Republic, he said.

The one outlier in Newmarks philanthropy is pigeon rescue, toward which he estimates hes donated upwards of $50,000. He fell in love with the birds back in the 1980s and today regularly places food and water out for local pigeons in the garden of his Manhattan home. A frequent visitor nicknamed Ghost Faced Killer is a regular presence on Newmarks social media profiles. Normally pigeons mate for life and are monogamous, however weve observed Ghost Faced with at least several different ladies, he said, There are a lot of pigeons visiting these days which share some of his distinctive plumage.

Ghost Faced is the favorite of both Newmark and his wife, Eileen Whelpley. The two married in 2012, putting an end to the Craigslist founders difficult, and at times literally painful, dating life. In the 1970s, after taking a ballet and jazz class to meet women, Newmark suffered a hernia, passing out when told hed need surgery.

Despite Newmark being a major philanthropist, the total sum of his fortune has long been shrouded in mystery. Hes never publicly revealed his net worth, which Bloomberg in 2020 estimated at $1.3 billion. I want to keep the focus on giving nearly all my money away to worthy causes, not how much Ive made, said Newmark. I wish everyone who has been as fortunate as I have been would do the same.

Looking at Craigslists finances doesnt offer much clarity, as the privately-owned company doesnt disclose its revenue numbers. But regardless of the exact figure, Newmarks giving makes it clear that his wealth is substantialearlier this year, he pledged $100 million each to both cybersecurity initiatives and veteran support. Theres more to come, according to Newmark, who plans to give away virtually everything hes earned during his lifetime. His next gift might be directed toward the Craig Newmark School of Journalism, which the philanthropist hopes to someday make tuition-free. The more I share power and money, the more effectively I can fulfill my mission, he said.

Reaching personal milestones has also reinvigorated his democratic ideals. Hitting 70 and facing some recent health issues reminded me that I have a limited amount of time to be effective, said Newmark, who recently underwent minor heart surgery. A nerds got to do what a nerds got to do. Normal people arent getting the job done.

Read the original post:
Craig Newmark Retired from Craigslist. Now He Wants to Save ... - Observer

However, one factor in the electoral process that is not discussed nearly enough is the influence of money on voting behavior particularly the use of Constituency Development Funds (CDFs). With very few regulations on how they are dispersed, their continued use has undermined democracy in Solomon Islands.

CDFs are public development funds that have a long history in Solomon Islands. The current iteration of the practice started in the year 2000, during the countrys civil war. Amid the conflict, control of discretionary funding for constituencies was given directly to Members of Parliament (MPs) with the ostensive goal of supporting rural development initiatives that were in line with local priorities. As a result, MPs were given broad authority to allocate CDF money to individuals, income-generating projects or community projects in their districts.

However, there have been no laws that specifically govern how CDFs are created and spent. Tracking them is therefore difficult, making them open to abuse. Some MPs will spend them on individual handouts for their voters (such as solar panels or roofing irons), while other MPs will use it to provide key infrastructure such as schools and clinics. Some will even use CDF funds for direct personal enrichment.

Questions about corruption and the impact of CDF spending are a common sight in Solomon Islands media and on social media. Structurally, the CDF system raises concerns about the separation of powers within the country's governance structure. CDFs grant MPs executive powers related to budget implementation, potentially undermining the checks and balances that the separation of powers is meant to provide. For instance, disaster relief can be doled out by MPs based on their own personal criteria, rather than where they are most needed.

Such practices also mean the public gets used to asking MPs for essential services rather than asking the government ministries that are supposed to provide them leading to a form of clientelism.

The original rationale behind CDFs was to bypass bureaucratic red tape and channel funds directly to community-level projects. However, the division of CDFs among constituencies, rather than based on population size or particular needs, can be an inefficient way of impacting peoples lives. In fact, the CDFs have no impact on peoples livelihoods according to households surveyed in the 2019 census. An inordinate focus on CDFs, rather than service provision, perpetuates inequality, as indicated by Solomon Islands relatively high poverty rates compared to other countries in the Pacific.

Furthermore, this approach has actually weakened the government's already limited capacity to fund and manage services. MPs expect the bulk of the governments budget to go to them in the form of CDFs yet they are not made directly responsible for providing services such as health care. As a result, hospitals and clinics now face shortages of equipment, medicines and access to utilities.

To put in perspective just how much CDF spending which is entirely discretionary leads to unmet needs, look no further than the governments youth budget. Youth make up the majority of Solomon Islands population, with 70 percent of the country under the age of 35. Yet, the entire national budget for youth development amounted to only 35 percent of the discretionary funding allocated to just one MP in 2018.

Another problem with CDFs is the disconnect they create between MPs and their voters. The CDF system has shifted the focus away from the electoral system itself which has generally functioned adequately. Instead, CDFs have taken center-stage in Solomon Island politics, as people expect to be given something from CDFs in exchange for voting for particular MPs.

After being elected by doling out CDF funding, most MPs rarely engage with their constituents and often only support those that they believe voted them into power. Constituents can then become frustrated, as voting out MPs in the next election offers the only option for change but those elections can be years away, offering little immediate recourse.

And while the elections themselves have functioned well, the voter registration process in Solomon Islands has become a source of some controversy. Voter registration takes place every four years, after which a list of registered voters will be publicly available to communities.

Some voters have alleged that residents from other constituencies have re-registered in their constituency based on expectations for CDF rewards. Several MPs have been implicated in efforts to move people into their own constituencies for the purpose of stacking votes in their favor including some reports that MPs allegedly use discretionary funds to charter transport for out-of-constituency voters, furthering the criticism that unchecked CDF spending can undermine the democratic process.

Meanwhile, options for protest in Solomon Islands are also limited, as marches and rallies need pre-approval from the police or else they can be declared illegal. Additionally, there have been threats in recent years to close popular outlets for criticism, particularly on social media.

Another unique issue with regard to the CDF system in Solomon Islands concerns how direct foreign funding constitutes a portion of the countrys CDF funds. This can unduly influence decision-making and contribute to conflict as seen in some episodes of rioting, such as in 2006 and 2021, when the role of foreign donors backing politicians was a key complaint in protests.

When Solomon Islands switched its recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019, Taiwan ended its funding for CDFs, which constituted 70 percent of Taiwans total assistance to Solomon Islands. However, in early 2023, China started the Rural Sustainable Development Program to provide funds to Solomon Island constituencies, raising concerns that a similar issue might arise. However, some recent reforms have made sure these Chinese funds are channeled through and overseen by the Ministry for Rural Development, rather through MPs alone, with mechanisms put in place to better track how the ministry spends the funds.

While these reforms are cause for some optimism and a sign of political momentum to address the issue the influence of foreign money in development funds should be closely examined going forward.

Any further change to the CDF system will require MPs to have more transparent and consultative relationships with their voters, and for the government to provide better services to their people, rather than discretionary funding being sought for all basic needs.

That means leaders in Solomon Islands both in the government and civil society will need to work together to facilitate equitable fund distribution based on criteria such as need, transparency and accountability, along with potential alternatives to the CDF system altogether, such as using other mechanisms like provincial governments for the distribution of funds spent on local projects.

Only through these measures can Solomon Islands restore peace and stability to its elections, allowing the electoral process to reflect the true will of the people and the needs of the nation.

Georgina Kekea is an editor and co-owner of Tavuli News, a newly established news agency in Solomon Islands.

Anouk Ride is an adjunct senior fellow at the Solomon Islands National University and a fellow at Australian National University.

Read the rest here:
How Constituency Development Funds Undermine Solomon Islands ... - United States Institute of Peace

During the 2022 midterm elections, a proposal to expand voting rights in Michigan was on the states ballot. Proposal 2, the Promote the Vote ballot initiative, would strengthen mail-in voting and early voting and defend against attacks on the democratic process. But before voters had their say on the matter, Republicans were trying their best to keep the measure off the ballot. After they failed to do so and voters subsequently supported the amendment by a near 20-point margin, state Republicans are back almost a year later, trying again to block the now-approved and enacted proposal via a recently filed lawsuit.

Proposal 2 contained a slew of provisions advancing voting rights in Michigan. The constitutional amendment required military and overseas ballots to be counted if they were postmarked by Election Day, mandated nine days of early voting, expanded drop boxes, provided free postage for absentee applications and ballots, allowed Michiganders to sign up to be permanent mail-in voters and expanded ways for voters to prove their identity.

Not only did Prop 2 strengthen voting rights, but it also protected democracy against growing right-wing threats in the state. The provisions provided that only election officials may conduct post-election audits, required canvas boards to certify election results based only on the official records of votes cast and allowed private funding for election administration.

To place Prop 2 on the ballot, Promote the Vote (PTV) the group pushing for the initiative had to garner signatures from 425,059 Michiganders. The group blew that number out of the water, submitting nearly 670,000 signatures, more than 507,000 of which the Michigan Bureau of Elections estimated to be valid.

The campaign to place Proposal 2 on the ballot was led by the same group behind Proposal 3 in 2018, which instituted automatic voter registration, allowed for Election Day registration and no-excuse mail-in voting, among other provisions.

Once PTV secured the required number of signatures, Prop 2 then had to be considered by the states Bureau of Elections. After careful deliberation, the Bureau recommended that the pro-voting measure be placed on the ballot. The only step remaining for the initiative was final administrative sign-off by the Board of State Canvassers. It was then that Republican tactics escalated to new heights.

After attorneys for right-wing groups attacked the measure, the two Republicans on the board voted against putting the amendment on the ballot, relying on dubious claims that the proposals petition form failed to note what sections of the state constitution would be impacted.

With Republicans voting against the amendment, the evenly-split board deadlocked 2-2, temporarily stopping the process in its tracks. PTV filed a lawsuit against the canvassing board for its failure to place the initiative on the ballot, alleging that the board violated PTVs right to due process under the Michigan Constitution.

Just eight days after filing the lawsuit, the Michigan Supreme Court sided with PTV and ordered the Board of State Canvassers to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, ruling that the board has a clear legal duty to certify the petition.

After Republicans failed to keep the amendment away from voters, Michiganders delivered a resounding voting rights victory. Despite needing just a simple majority to pass, the amendment garnered 60% of the vote.

While the amendment passed, the Michigan Legislature still needed to pass laws that would formally enshrine the amendments provisions into the state constitution. This past summer, the Democratic-led Legislature and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) did so, enacting a slate of laws implementing the proposal in full.

Actually putting the law into practice, however, has proven to be a challenge. The laws so drastically improve voting in the state that election offices and officials statewide have had to scramble to implement the provisions in time for the 2024 election. Michigan is the largest state in the country that administers its elections at the local level, with many local officials working part-time.

While some clerks have described the process as nerve-wracking and challenging, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) is confident that the states election workers will be able to fully adapt to the changes, saying she has every confidence that theyll be ready to meet the moment in 2024.

Last month nearly a year after Prop 2 prevailed 11 Michigan Republican state legislators filed a federal lawsuit seeking to nullify both the 2018 and 2022 PTV initiatives now enshrined in the state constitution. The lawsuit additionally seeks to ban future ballot initiatives that would implement changes to federal elections in the state constitution.

The Republican lawsuit hinges on the fringe and discredited independent state legislature (ISL) theory. The theory claims that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures and state legislatures alone have the power to regulate federal elections. Republicans promoting the ISL theory focus their attention on the word legislature, and argue the clause means state legislatures only and does not include a governors veto, citizen-led ballot measures and state court rulings.

Since the Michigan Legislature was not involved with the passage of the voting amendments and because the initiatives regulated the times, places and manner of federal elections by amending the Michigan Constitution, the lawsuit alleges that the 2018 and 2022 PTV amendments are unconstitutional and usurped legislative power under the Elections Clause because the direct democracy process involves no involvement or approval by the state legislators.

The ISL theory was roundly debunked as a legitimate theory just last summer when the ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court rejected an argument from North Carolina Republicans in Moore v. Harper similarly arguing that state legislatures alone can regulate federal elections. Though that case focused on the ability of state courts to impact federal elections, the underlying premise was the same as is being presented now in Michigan.

The Michigan Constitution allows petition-and-state-ballot proposals without state legislative approval, a process that the Republican state lawmakers argue violates their federal rights under the Elections Clause.

The Republican plaintiffs in the case also contend that [t]he Michigan Constitution vests the legislative power in the state senate members and house of representatives members, including the right to regulate the times, places, and manner of federal elections, and therefore the voting rights amendments enacted independent of the Legislature similarly violate the state constitution.

As part of the lawsuit, the legislators ask the court to rule that the petition-and-state-ballot-proposal process is unconstitutional, bar the defendants from any actions funding, supporting or facilitating the use of the process, deem the two pro-voting constitutional amendments as constitutionally invalid and block the defendants from any actions funding, supporting or facilitating the use of the 2018 and 2022 constitutional amendments to regulate times, places and manner of federal elections.

Although the Republican-backed lawsuit was only filed late last month, three nonprofit organizations and two burdened voters have already requested to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the voting rights amendments. The Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans, the Detroit Downriver chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute and Detroit Disability Power filed the motion.

The groups allege that the Republican legislators filed the case in a blatant attempt to weaken the rights that Michigan voters have fortified in recent years, and further argue that the plaintiffs seek not only to eschew the will of Michigan voters at large, but also to further insulate themselves from having to answer to their own constituents.

In asking to dismiss the case, the groups point out that the Michigan Constitution has enshrined the right for citizens to propose certain amendments to the state constitution by petition for more than a century. The proposed intervenors claim that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims and argue that the Republican legislators took too long to file the lawsuit voters approved Proposal 3 nearly five years ago.

Most notably, the groups argue that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that the Elections Clause vests state legislatures with exclusive authority to set the rules governing federal elections.

While the decision in Moore could be more than enough to merit the lawsuits dismissal, the motion to intervene contends that the Supreme Court has already rejected the argument that citizen-initiated state constitutional amendments in the federal elections context violate the Elections Clause.

They point to Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Elections Clause does not prevent Arizonans from creating by ballot initiative a commission to establish congressional districts, and allege that the Court made clear that it resists singling out federal elections as the one area in which states may not use citizen initiatives as an alternative legislative process.

After failing to prevent the 2022 PTV initiative from being decided by voters, Michigan Republicans are flailing, filing a frivolous lawsuit seeking to block the amendment once again. Invoking a fringe legal theory that was rejected mere months ago by the nations highest court, Michigan Republicans are shameless in their efforts to ignore the overwhelming will of Michiganders just because they didnt get their way.

See the rest here:
Michigan Republicans Try To Squash a Voting Rights Amendment ... - Democracy Docket